Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[leftysergeant]

It's irrelevant anyway, and strikes me as a cheap ploy by his attorney to garner sympathy. Even if Zimmerman did get his nose broken by Martin, it doesn't prove anything other than that they had a fight. It tells us nothing about how the fight started.

There was also time between the shooting and his visit to the ER for Z to have realized that he had no evidence of being pummeled by a lunatic, so that he would have an opportunity to ram his nose into a hard surface and break it himself to manufacture evidence that he was brutally attacked.

If he was on his back (as per witness statements and the grass and rain water on his back) while Martin was whomping on him, how likely is it, really, that he was attacked from behind?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There was also time between the shooting and his visit to the ER for Z to have realized that he had no evidence of being pummeled by a lunatic, so that he would have an opportunity to ram his nose into a hard surface and break it himself to manufacture evidence that he was brutally attacked.

If he was on his back (as per witness statements and the grass and rain water on his back) while Martin was whomping on him, how likely is it, really, that he was attacked from behind?

When did he say he was attacked from behind?

 

[johnny karate]

Just on the claims that a broken nose would be obvious on a video - not necessarily. My son bashed his nose pretty hard when sledging a couple of years ago, when he crashed into his cousin. He didn't break it, but a day later it was really swollen on one side and he had a black eye. Just after the accident there was not much sign of it at all. It sometimes takes some time before the swelling and particularly the bruising, become evident.

Yeah, I have agree with you on that point. I don't think there's any real damning evidence in that video to indicate Zimmerman didn't have a broken nose. (But there also isn't any evidence that he did). Aside from the low-resolution of the video, there are no real clear shots of his face. I don't think it looks like his nose is broken, but I can't tell for sure.

 

[leftysergeant]

would we be able to see this in the CCTV footage?

http://www.saintelizabethonline.com/downloads/healthimages/laceration_scalp1.jpgYes, unless it was dressed at the scene, in which case, we would see the dressng. The patient shown here is awaiting a dressing in the ER. Z had already seen medical personnel capable of applyng a dressing, and it is clear that they did not.

or this?

http://www.ecommunity.com/firstaid/healthimages/lacerationscalp_child.jpg

DERP! Of course not. But Z's hair was not that long.

 

[leftysergeant]

When did he say he was attacked from behind?

Oh, crap! Now I have to go dig through a couple thousand posts...

Z claimed that he was returning to his truck when he was attacked. That would have to be an attack from behind.

The only alternative is that he was standing in Martin's way looking like a perv or a gangbanger, thus a threat that Martin could not avoid.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No, he says he was approached from behind, they exchanged words and then he was punched. On presumes he would have turned round when they were exchanging words....

Some of the media misreported this as him saying he was attacked from behind.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

I thought I'd just collect some gems gathered from the case (and the thread).

1) If someone follows you and generally acts like a jerk you're fully justified in attacking them. Even getting their gun from them and shooting them (thanks Lefty).

2) It's OK to constantly use a mugshot when discussing Zimmerman the burly white paranoid watchdog, and drag his every past deed through the microscope of public opinion; but Martin the 17 year old black boy who was carrying candy must be depicted only through wholesome photos that depict him younger and innocent looking, and his past deeds are sacrosanct and must never be examined.

3) Police officer statements are not to be trusted, but kinda-sorta witnesses with changing stories KNOW.

4) Your lawyer appealing for sympathy is sleazy, but a country wide campaign with marches and politicians on-board is peachy.

5) If you're half white but President you're actually black. If you're half Hispanic and shoot a kid you're actually white.

6) Give people some grainy footage and they're Quincy.

7) If someone beats you badly enough to cut your head and make your nose bleed, it better be a gaping wound and a broken nose or else they don't count.

8) If someone is hitting you, be sure and run a self-diagnostic before considering a response to make sure you're truly in danger.

9) Teenage males who's family has broken up can not be aggressive and reckless.

10) If you outweigh your opponent, no-one will believe you could be cowed or overpowered.

 

[LTC8K6]

Did they made up his injuries in the police report?

I would say that the video is not good enough to run with a headline that Zimmerman shows no injuries.

However, that is the story all over the news this morning. It was just reported as factual on my local news.

Also, the headlines all seem to mention bruising, but depending on the time of the video after the incident, one might not expect bruises to be showing yet.

Or, it could be that Zimmerman's injuries are indeed not as significant as we were initially told.

I'll be surprised if we get through another day without an explanation / rebuttal.

 

[LTC8K6]

Now we have the funeral director getting into the act and saying there were no marks on Martin's hands, except that there probably wouldn't be any in the account given by Zimmerman of a single punch to the nose.

At any rate, an autopsy was done, and that's the place to get such info.

 

[Mumbles]

I thought I'd just collect some gems gathered from the case (and the thread).

1) If someone follows you and generally acts like a jerk you're fully justified in attacking them. Even getting their gun from them and shooting them (thanks Lefty).

I'm sorry, but responsible gun owners don't chase down people and ask rude questions just because they're black and wearing a hoodie. And yes, if you chase me down and demand questions, and even act like you're going to grab me, then we're fighting. And if you do this, and I see that you have a gun, then I'm going to go for your gun. Because you have a gun.

Don't people know how to behave? Chasing after people is asking for trouble. What's so hard to understand about that?

2) It's OK to constantly use a mugshot when discussing Zimmerman the burly white paranoid watchdog, and drag his every past deed through the microscope of public opinion; but Martin the 17 year old black boy who was carrying candy must be depicted only through wholesome photos that depict him younger and innocent looking, and his past deeds are sacrosanct and must never be examined.

This seems like a complaint about using publicly released photos. This is a good idea, since if you follow it, you won't humiliate yourself like many right wing sites did by posting a picture of an obviously irrelevant black kid posing in his bedroom, and then claiming that it was Trayvon Martin.

3) Police officer statements are not to be trusted, but kinda-sorta witnesses with changing stories KNOW.

In this case, the police aren't trusted because they've already made several false or contradictory statements.

4) Your lawyer appealing for sympathy is sleazy, but a country wide campaign with marches and politicians on-board is peachy

Huh?

5) If you're half white but President you're actually black. If you're half Hispanic and shoot a kid you're actually white

Well, no. Hispanic is not a racial group at all, and people with black ancestry have been considered black in the US for well over a century now. So, if you're half hispanic, then that says nothing about your race no matter what, and if you have a,black parent, then you're black, no matter what.

Don't like it? Hop into your TARDIS and get to work.

7) If someone beats you badly enough to cut your head and make your nose bleed, it better be a gaping wound and a broken nose or else they don't count

Well, yes, you don't get to Shoot and kill someone over a scuffle..

9) Teenage males who's family has broken up can not be aggressive and reckless.

It's more that black teenagers aren't all cartoonish supervillains.

 

[leftysergeant]

No, he says he was approached from behind, they exchanged words and then he was punched.

This is still consistant with his having interdicted Martin. This makes him as wrong as a ham and cheese sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah

 

[Dancing David]

That was after she says she had been trying to call them repeatedly to tell them the same thing. This is information she had wished to state for awhile, it just apparently took that long for the police to pick up on one of her calls. It MAY also be the case (not saying it is for a fact) that hearing backstory helped her connect what she saw and who did what. I don't know if she'll be allowed to testify, but if so she will be a problem.

The problem is that she also was reported by the police as having refused to provide evidence at the time, until they asked her a third time. Then she gave a written statement to a friend, according to the SPD

 

[Cylinder]

Not in the case of an affirmative defense:
The last sentence indicates there are exceptions, but there is no citation, nor do we know if this case would qualify.

It's important to note that Florida law not only provides an affirmative defense if prosecuted, but also a statutory immunity from arrest and prosecution in the first place.



776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

I guess this explains the State Attorney's assertion that they were prevented by statute from arresting Zimmerman.

Dennis v Florida, Florida Supreme Court, SC09-941

Section 776.032(1) provides, in part, that a “person who uses force as permitted in 776.012, 776.013, or 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer . . . who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties.” Section 776.032(1) defines “criminal prosecution” as including “arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.” Similarly, the preamble of the law creating section 776.032 states that “the Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.”.

While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial. Section 776.032(1) expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force. The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force.

In the same case, the Florida Supreme Court also affirmed the procedure for asserting statutory immunity established by Florida District Courts in Zack Peterson v. Florida [cites omitted]:

The trial court conducted a hearing at which the parties did not present live evidence but, instead, presented the deposition of an eyewitness-petitioner's and the victim's sister-as well as the deposition of the alleged victim. After consideration of the evidence and the arguments, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss.   The trial court correctly observed that no rule or procedure had yet been enacted to guide trial courts in deciding a claim of immunity brought under section 776.032(1).   The court nevertheless proceeded to recognize its role as finder of fact at this stage of the proceedings, “much in the same way that it does when deciding whether the state has proved a confession is voluntary.”   The court then determined that the testimony of the alleged victim was clear and reasonable, and “prosecution for attempted murder [would not be] precluded as a matter of law because the facts do not establish a self-defense immunity.”   The trial court further found that immunity had not been established as a matter of fact or law, and denied the motion to dismiss.

[big snip]

We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.   The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.   Here, the trial court did what was required.   Petitioner is not precluded from submitting the matter to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial.

In the absence of a procedure for handling these matters, we find guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in People v. Guenther.   In that case, the court decided that Colorado's similar immunity statute authorized a trial court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the pretrial stage and did not merely create an affirmative defense for adjudication at trial. The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress.

 Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.   As noted by the trial court, courts have imposed a similar burden for motions challenging the voluntariness of a confession. We reject any suggestion that the procedure established by rule should control so as to require denial of a motion whenever a material issue of fact appears.

So, as I read it, Zimmerman would be entitled to a pre-trial Peterson hearing to assert his claim of statutory immunity which would be decided by the court as a matter of fact and by a preponderance of the evidence. Failing that, he would also be entitled to the same claim presented to the trial jury as an affirmative defense during the course of any trial.

 

[Dancing David]

Is this a new claim? I have not seen it before.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/ne...ill-zimmerman-zimmermans-father-says-03282012

Wow, throw hearsay on the fire.

Sad, more lawyering.

(Not you the father and the media)

 

[leftysergeant]

It's important to note that Florida law not only provides an affirmative defense if prosecuted, but also a statutory immunity from arrest and prosecution in the first place.



776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

I guess this explains the State Attorney's assertion that they were prevented by statute from arresting Zimmerman.

Then the State's Attorney has tofu for brains. The cops who actually saw Z aren't totally buying his crap. They still have questions. They just aren't bright enough to get the answers they need.

So, as I read it, Zimmerman would be entitled to a pre-trial Peterson hearing to assert his claim of statutory immunity which would be decided by the court as a matter of fact and by a preponderance of the evidence. Failing that, he would also be entitled to the same claim presented to the trial jury as an affirmative defense during the course of any trial.

So why hadn't that vapid twit SA proceded to schedule such a hearing prior to the coming of the current crap storm?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There was also time between the shooting and his visit to the ER for Z to have realized that he had no evidence of being pummeled by a lunatic, so that he would have an opportunity to ram his nose into a hard surface and break it himself to manufacture evidence that he was brutally attacked.

If he was on his back (as per witness statements and the grass and rain water on his back) while Martin was whomping on him, how likely is it, really, that he was attacked from behind?

OMG. Too much walking dead for Lefty.

That's right lefty, life is a TV show and Zimmerman is Shane

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm sorry, but responsible gun owners don't chase down people and ask rude questions just because they're black and wearing a hoodie. And yes, if you chase me down and demand questions, and even act like you're going to grab me, then we're fighting. And if you do this, and I see that you have a gun, then I'm going to go for your gun. Because you have a gun.

You are such a wussy. If some fool tries to interdict me on my way to a place where I have a right to be and he looks like a deranged doofus, he will be talking to the pointy ends of five 158 grain lead semi-wadcutters, and had better have some better chat-up line than "What are you doing here?"

 

[Cylinder]

So why hadn't that vapid twit SA proceded to schedule such a hearing prior to the coming of the current crap storm?

Huh? Statutory immunity is a claim made by the defendant. The State's Attorney can't really file motions on behalf of a hypothetical defendant. You'll probably see this motion presented to coincide with an inquiry by the grand jury.

 

[Cylinder]

The cops who actually saw Z aren't totally buying his crap. They still have questions.

"Questions," as I read it, aren't really enough to arrest in contravention to a claim of statutory immunity.

 

[leftysergeant]

Huh? Statutory immunity is a claim made by the defendant. The State's Attorney can't really file motions on behalf of a hypothetical defendant. You'll probably see this motion presented to coincide with an inquiry by the grand jury.

Then she should have just gone ahead and filed charges on the night of the shooting and let the chips fall where they might. Everybody spiked the ball on the twenty-yard line here.